Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Saddleback Church 2.0

Debunking Rick Warren and Andy Wood On Female Pastors

Rick Warren got a lot of attention for his interview with Russell Moore of Christianity Today in which he defended ordaining female pastors. While insisting that he was not compromised by worldly ideology, he made connection early on between the MeToo agenda in the church and would ultimately argue that it would be racist for the Southern Baptist Convention to exclude feminist churches. Andy Wood sent an unlisted video to his church audience which we obtained via tip that also attempts to make a case for women pastors. How do they stack up? Not well.

The Great Commission

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:19-20 NASB1995

Rick Warren uses this passage on evangelism to apply it to church governance. He states that by denying women ordination, only half of Christians are able to fulfill the Great Commission. Rick Warren’s argument is inconsistent, as he bloviates about how he has empowered all in his church to fulfill the Great Commission, stating that if you bring someone to Christ, you get to baptize them at Saddleback. If this is the case, that the Great Commission applies to the ordained clergy and the layman alike, how does this substantiate a case for female pastors.


For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;

Acts: 2:15-17 NASB1995

Rick Warren furthermore argues that women were preaching at Pentecost citing Acts 2 where the believers spoke in tongues to communicate the gospel. The verse is not speaking of delivering a sermon, as the passage shows us that Peter did. It’s a complete nonsequitur to extrapolate female pastors from this text.

The Ressurrection

The angel said to the women, “[a]Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Matthew 28:5-7 NASB1995

Rick Warren erroneously calls Mary Magdalene delivering a message the first sermon in church history. Good news was delivered, but this is more akin to a courier than a pastor of a church. That’s not to diminish what happened here and how Mary Magdalene being chosen to be witness glorifies God. This simply doesn’t substantiate a case for female pastors especially as she did not have a role in church leadership going forward.

These are Rick Warren’s arguments and they fall flat on their faces. Andy Wood makes a more compelling case, admittedly, but it requires a closed Bible to believe.

Andy Wood’s Followup

11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

Ephesians 4:11-12 NASB1995

This passage is Andy Wood’s operating thesis as he attempt to explain that women served as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the New Testament.

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Romans 16:7 NASB1995

Citing Junia in Romans 16 (note: the popular consensus is the feminine Junia as opposed to the masculine Junias), Wood explains that Junia was a female apostle. This runs into multiple brick walls. As  the NASB1995 demonstrates, it’s disputed whether Junia was a woman is disputed. And whether she was an apostle even more so with most translations more clearly, than the NASB1995, indicating otherwise. And since the age of apostles is over, this would not serve as a sufficient argument for female pastors.

He then cites women prophesying in Scripture, which isn’t a

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well

Romans 16:1-2 NASB1995

Based on this passage Wood argues that Phoebe was a pastor, teacher.

Additionally, Priscilla and Aquila are used to justify women pastors. Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned together as they are a married couple in the church who show the important role that women played in the early church. Helping to correct and Apollos in Acts 18:26 as a couple and hosting a church in Romans 16:3 doesn’t established that they even elders of that church.

Paul vs Paul

Andy Wood ultimately argues that 1 Timothy 2, Paul is arguing that women can be pastors but not elders for that would be usurping a man’s authority. The role of an elder is to teach the Word, but Andy Wood argues with much sophistry that man can delegate authority and roles given to us by God. By Wood’s logic, a woman can run a household if the husband delegates his authority. So also, church elders can delegate their authority to women.


Rick Warren and Andy Wood argue that this is not an issue to split a denomination over, but it is one that can divide a church. Andy Wood acknowledges this decision will drive people away. One must wonder, if you are a genuine Christian at Saddleback Church, where yet might they be struck?

Powered by RedCircle

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.


29 Responses

  1. With respect for your article regarding Junia, your research has the possible appearance of inadequate research or perhaps “men only” cherry picking.
    Junia was in fact a woman but her standing within the NT early church made the “men only” Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, centuries later, deliberately alter her name to that of a male because they knew it meant she was, God forbid, an apostle.
    What with male-only priests, that change was needed. To this day, many theologically gifted Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic scholars, Early Church historians say she probably was an apostle.
    I say this as a former “anti-women pastors” ministerial believer.
    Many of my bible college instructors were women that graciously taught us men with humility, dignity, grace, and a biblical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek education. They were profoundly left brained, not at all giddy, motor-mouths, or flighty. We men were never uncomfortable or had distain for these godly ladies.
    Now compare them with many [but NOT all] boastful, loud, pulpit-pounding, narcistic, money-grabbing male pastors and I will take the previous mentioned godly ladies that don’t high-brow their inquisitive congregants.
    Respectfully in Christ,

  2. God made male and female differently with different purposes.

    And I purposefully use the word purpose, on purpose. Considering the guy who became famous for writing books about the word seems to have a problem with the specific purposes for men and women that God has put into place.

    1. If I have you understood, a woman can: pilot a 747, command a military army, be a space shuttle commander, a brain surgeon, be President of the United States but isn’t qualified to be a spiritual leader among [not over] men?
      Do you let your women cut their hair short? After all, it’s also in the bible.
      The phrase ‘to ordain” means to recognize a person’s calling from God by their ABUNDANCE of spiritual fruit. It is the seen fruit, not the anatomy.
      Unlike the days of yore, women are no longer kept ignorant, uneducated, seen as 2nd class baby-makers sitting in the back of the temple. Or worse, hear the common prayer of the Jewish men, “Lord, I thank you that I have not been born a woman.”

      1. At least two of those things women shouldn’t be allowed to do. The 19th Amendment did irreparable damage America.

        1. You are joking right, Ray? You don’t appear over-the-top in your blog? So that’s a joke, right, right?
          With Respect,

          1. No, the 19th Amendment was a huge mistake. Women actually have less freedom now than they did prior to the progressive amendments to the Constitution 16-19

      2. Stan, why would you imply that such stuff is in the Bible?

        Women should be kept ignorant? Where’s that scripture?
        Women are 2nd class? Where’s that scripture?

        And what is “2nd class” about having children? Is that what you think of your mother? Is she 2nd class? Or do you hold her in great esteem and honor? Motherhood is arguably the most honorable job on the face of this Earth.

        It is far more honorable than any job you listed.

        You don’t understand anything. If anyone has a hierarchical mindset, it is you and the rabid feminists you defend – because your focus seems to be on power and authority and position. As a pastor, is that how you see yourself? Not as a servant, but as a powerful authority in high position? Do you see those who aren’t called to preach, such as myself, as 2nd class lesser-thans?

        Equal does not mean “the same as”

        The ultimate meaning is that we are equal before God, through Jesus Christ.

        You’re a pastor. I’m not. Do you hear me bellyaching? Do you hear me whining? Hear me being jealous and envious? Hear me complaining? You don’t hear any such thing, because that is not God’s purpose and will, and I know I’m a valuable part of the body of Christ just as much as you are.

        I said that God created male and female differently with different purposes. I did not say either is lesser than the other, or that any purpose is lesser than another.

        What else does the Bible say which you believe is wrong? I sort of suspect it’s a long list.

        1. Hi, Tekton,
          I’m sorry but you appear to be in a non-Christlike rage: throwing insults, woefully misquoting what I wrote, all the while trying to distort my saying of “2nd class”.
          Women were to sit/stand in the back of the temple court and in a synagogue, were kept mostly uneducated, and when in a NT church gathering they were to sit apart from the men/husbands. I even witnessed that separation while in Taiwan at a Chinese church in ’75…took a picture of it.
          To observe Jesus, at the well, talking to a woman was quite disturbing to the disciples. When Jesus fed the 5,000 men, the women and children sat apart from the men. Often, the word “men” or “brethren” meant men & women due to Jewish customs.
          Might I encourage you to reread what I wrote and, if necessary, agree to disagree rather than having offending verbiage-laced posts after posts. And yes, you were in fact bellyaching.
          While reading your posts, I was reminded of the continual wordy deflections made by woke politicians, their constant distortions, and refusal to recognize what’s put before them. Tekton, please reread and rethink what I wrote. Your behavior was disappointing.
          With respect,

          1. Stan, nobody reading these comments is illiterate. They all can read exactly what you said, and know exactly what you implied. I stand by every word I posted.

            I’m not in any rage, but I’ll tell you I’m certainly not about to be joyful upon reading things like “2nd class baby-makers” compared and contrasted with the overall implication that mothers are lesser than pilots and astronauts.

            You may not realize the message you actually conveyed. But you absolutely did convey it. No use trying to wiggle out of it, bud.

        2. Tekton,
          There is no use in trying to respond to you, Tekton, as all your posts to me are profoundly misquoted or willfully fabricated. You continually make the very-typical zealot comments, the all-or-nothing pronouncements.
          Gee, since I understand something that differs with you, I should be un-credential? Seriously? Don’t you see yourself? Differing believers are a threat to your poor self-esteem.
          If you wish to hold to your doctrine regarding men & women, so be it. Just agree to disagree with me. I’ll have no problem with that…I’m a big boy, I can handle it. But, to make raging judgments show that you can’t do the same.
          Your continual, and willful, misquotes present a sad commentary of your overall character. You openly present most of the earmarks of serious insecurities, and poor self-esteem ergo, being a “man” is deeply your much-needed foundation of importance. It’s no wonder you don’t use your full name on your posts. You hide behind “Tekton”.
          If your wife had an understanding of a particular issue in the bible, one that I lacked, I would have no negative response to her instructing/teaching me, I would fully welcome her thoughts and motive.
          With your current radical mindset, being reprimanded over time, I would have the elders mark you, show you to the door, being a divisive “only MY way” person. I could be wrong here but, is that why you are no longer a software engineer? Were you being overly negative in your personal thoughts or deeds in the workplace?
          Please don’t respond, I WON’T read such verbiage. So, your efforts to reply are completely a waste of time…seriously. I know your type all too well.
          With difficult respect,

          1. Stan, if you were content to agree to disagree, you wouldn’t have responded to my initial post, profoundly “misquoting” it, by assuming I said something that I did not, in the first place. If you were content to agree to disagree, and didn’t have a zealous compulsion to force everybody else to see it your way (in direct conflict with God’s Word), we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

            You falsely accused me of believing women should be ignorant, uneducated “2nd class baby-makers” (lesser than and denigrating motherhood) when I said nothing of the sort, and when the Bible says nothing of the sort.

            I have both a right and an obligation before God to respond and rebuke you, which I did. What you do in response to that is between you and Him. He’s your judge.

            It’s not about having things my way, Stan. It’s about what the Bible says. It’s about having things God’s way. A distinction you continue to intentionally ignore.

          2. And of course, you have done the same thing to Ray on numerous occasions.

            If you were content to agree to disagree, and weren’t a divisive “only MY way” person (because you sure don’t seem to care about God’s way as set forth in His Word), you wouldn’t have made a good 95% of the posts you’ve made here on this website trying to sway Ray and everybody else to see it your way. You wouldn’t have made your initial post on this article, nor would you have responded to mine.

            There is indeed ONLY one way to see things, Stan. God’s way. Not yours. Not mine. Not anybody else’s. Not as many ways as there are people. God’s way. ONLY ONE.

            And that is given to us in His Word.

            Once you reject the parts of the Bible you don’t like, you cannot be anything but one who divisively tries to force others to see it “only MY way.” When you do that, then that is all you can possibly be, Stan. When you ignore God’s Word, the “way” you are advocating can be nothing other than your own. Which essentially is to do things Satan’s way.

          3. Of course, in trying to fight for, defend, and protect your wife, and in trying to stand up for the weaker sex, you are revealing the existence of God’s created order, thereby proving yourself wrong. You are your wife’s defender and protector, because that’s how God made it work. You’re both different, with different purposes determined not by yourselves, but by the Lord. But tearing down His Word is crossing the line. You are supposed to fulfill your purpose as her husband under and subservient to the Lord and to His Word.

            What I initially posted, to which you objected, is simply Biblical fact. You can fight against it, but you can’t make it go away. You cannot remove what God put into place. You can’t make it disappear any more than you could make the sun and moon disappear. God put it there. That’s how God made it, in His perfect wisdom. And that’s how it is.

            The more you fight against it, the more you prove it true.

      3. What if a woman isn’t highly educated? What if she is a full time mother? Is she lesser than the woman flying the 747? According your reasoning, she is.

        Are you lesser than an astronaut?

        Obviously your purposes in life are different. By your own reasoning, one of you must be lesser than the other.

        You need to dig into the Word and get your mind right.

        God made male and female differently with different purposes. It’s fact. Deal with it.

        1. Tekton,
          Again you appear in an awkward orbit around God’s only Son. You still don’t understand what I wrote.
          NO ONE is lessor than another…did you read that line, Tekton? We are commanded to consider others as MORE IMPORTANT than ourselves, to humbly serve the less fortunate regardless of color or gender. Education might mean one has a lot of book learn’ but it doesn’t make one superior over another.
          My elder teams were not based on education, it was about their right-standing with God, the godly fruit bearing witness to their chosen position of eldership.
          Women were 2nd class in BIBLICAL times, and couldn’t even vote in America until the early 1900s. Do you call that 1st class treatment?
          Many, if not most, of the reasons women were treated in such disturbing ways were the cultural and theological belief systems of that time. In short, they had no real voice in their controlled societies…THAT is 2nd class treatment.
          Now in 2023, we still have glass ceilings in some churches, mostly Baptist but there are others too. My wife, still an active ordained women’s pastor, is theologically educated but has still experienced that “ceiling”. She has received 2nd class treatment in some churches, always by hard-hearted men.
          While teaching an adult bible class before services, she was informed by that church’s elders that if a male entered the class, she was to stop teaching.
          One new visitor, and his wife, came to a home bible study that she was teaching and he promptly walked out…women can’t teach men. Isn’t that an act of being treated 2nd class by a “superior” highbrow?
          I won’t match my education against yours, that is stupid and boastful. Yours is secular whereas mine is theological…apples and oranges…one degree isn’t superior to the other…that would be fleshly.

          1. Stan, let’s review here. You responded to me because you took issue with the statement that God created male and female differently with different purposes.

            In your response, you took that statement I made to have meant that one is lesser than and 2nd class to the other.

            And you accuse me of misquoting you …. ???

            Now you deceitfully respond here as if you posted that no one is lesser than another. Yet at no time prior to the comment I’m responding to right now, did you post anything even remotely implying, much less stating, that “NO ONE is lessor than another”

            And the comments here have time stamps to prove it.

            You not only set motherhood beneath occupations such as pilots and astronauts, and you not only compared that to Jewish tradition, you specifically referenced scripture about long hair, as if it’s bad for women to honor that scripture, with the implication that the Bible is wrong. You intentionally brought the Bible into it, Stan.

            But in your responses, after being called out and rebuked for it, you try to wiggle out of that implication also, essentially trying to say you only compared it to Jewish tradition.

            I’m not defending Jewish tradition. I don’t give a flying flip about Jewish tradition or what Jewish men thought, or you think they thought, or customs of the day, or anything of the sort. Jesus specifically condemned the conflation of traditions of men with the commandments of God, and that is just about what you are doing here and now. Intentionally conflating the two. The Bible says what the Bible says. I’m talking about the commandments of God. While you’re dwelling on the traditions of men.

          2. I’m sure your wife is a fantastic woman. But the Bible does specifically state, just plain as it possibly can, that a woman should not teach men. You might not agree with the man who got up and walked out, or with the church elders. But you have no right to falsely accuse him of anything except following God’s Word. You have borne false witness against him, claiming he mistreated your wife, implying he has a problem with women, implying that’s 2nd class treatment.

            Yet what he was really doing was simply honoring God’s Word.

            You’ve gotten yourself into this conundrum. Now you are demonizing people for simply honoring what the Bible clearly says. Your basic argument being that by honoring what the Bible clearly and plainly says, they are mistreating your wife.

            So I ask again. Which other parts of the Bible do you reject and believe are wrong?

            I’m beginning to wonder whether or not you might be in the wrong line of work.

          3. You’re in rebellion against the elders of the church. You’re bearing false witness against them. You’re displaying contempt and disrespect for God’s Word. Your mindset is worldly.

            Just in your posts here, you’ve displayed several things that are biblical grounds for termination. You need to repent and step aside, at least for a time. Right now, in your current state, you should not be in ministry.

          4. What sort of pastor would argue that honoring and respecting God’s Word is tantamount to mistreating women?

            What sort of pastor makes such an argument, Stan?

            What sort of pastor would be fine with tearing down God’s Word? What sort of pastor doesn’t see and understand the importance of honoring and respecting God’s Word, from the first page to the last? What sort of pastor would eagerly send a false message to the world that the Bible is wrong?

            Step aside.Take a long vacation or something. You’ve gotten way off track. Right now, you are not qualified, much less your wife.

            Repent and get right with the Lord.

      4. Do I “let” my women (plural ??) cut their hair short? I don’t force anyone to do anything.

        It’s not about submission to men. It’s about submission to the Lord.
        It’s not about being subservient to men. It’s about being subservient to the Lord.
        It’s not about being beneath men. It’s about being beneath the Lord.
        It’s not about what women should be forced to do. It’s about what godly women should willingly do.

        It’s not about what you perceived to be advanced or progressed, or how backwards you think people were in Bible times.

        We all serve.

        I’m a former software engineer, well-educated and experienced, highly skilled and accomplished. (Though nowadays I truly am a tekton.)

        But what sort of man would I be if I believed my level of knowledge, skill, and qualifications made me greater than anyone else, as if they’re “2nd class”? What sort of man would I be if I saw others as lesser?

        You’re talking to someone right now, who can do greatly skilled things, and has been highly accomplished in the past, but who also cannot be a pastor – simply because God has not made it so and I respect Him.

      5. I don’t even envy my own days as a software engineer. I don’t make nearly as much now, but I do honorable work. You might find me digging ditches, raking leaves, mowing yards, painting houses, doing all sorts of labor. In many ways I like it better than sitting behind the desk writing software till my eyes bug out of my head. I serve my family and take care of them. I work for them. I’m content with my lot in life. It is honorable work.

        “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.” – Phil. 4:11-12

        Growing up I was an accomplished athlete. Just about every week sportscasters on TV were mentioning my name. Newspaper articles were written about me. I was known statewide. Heavily recruited, and went on to play college football.

        Nobody even remembers it, and wouldn’t care about it if they did. It means precisely nothing. Not more than 5 years after high-school, one of my former classmates said to me, “I thought [the backup] was the starter” That’s how long it lasts. It’s a treasure on earth which moth and rust, and the fallen state of creation doth corrupt.

        Nowadays, if I dig a ditch to take care of my family, I’m no lesser than I used to be. If you passed me by on the street, you’d see someone in worn work clothes, beat up work boots, scraggly looking, gray haired, worn out. You would probably think I’m uneducated, unskilled, 2nd class, a “loser” who never accomplished anything. Because, Stan, that is how you think.

        Your problem isn’t that women shouldn’t preach or pastor. Your problem is believing preaching and pastoring are something they are not. It’s not supposed to be a position of high social status, or accomplishment, or achievement, or self-advancement, or your own power and authority. It’s a sacred position of service. It’s a position which defers and directs to God’s power and God’s authority and God’s status and God’s advancement and God’s accomplishment.

        A pastor is a shepherd. A shepherd’s staff has two ends.One is for gently correcting and caring for the sheep. The other is for beating the living snot out of the wolves.

        Those who are not called to pastor, can’t correctly wield that staff. They’ll gently cajole the wolves, and beat the sheep. They’ll protect and care for the wolves, at the expense of the sheep. Many will be too spineless to even pick up the staff at all. Others will indeterminately swing it around in the air a little to make a show of it, but never put it to use. They’re not wired for the job, because that is not God’s intended purpose for them. That doesn’t mean they’re lesser or not a valuable part of the body of Christ. It just means that is not the job and purpose that God has called them to do.

        1. While perusing these posts I came upon this one. Had I seen it earlier I would have responded to it too. Kudos on your football era, mine was stunted by Vietnam leg injuries requiring both knees being replaced. So, I couldn’t even be called a “has been”.
          I really enjoyed your last paragraph, quite well written. My graduate thesis was on the NT pastor and church. So my heart bleeds for rightful pastors instead of the ones you so perfectly described.
          I have seen all of those that you wrote about and it is indeed troubling that they pontificate being a shepherd. A good job!

          1. Right, you heard what you wanted to hear, made wild assumptions, overreacted and falsely accused me not based on anything I said, and not based on anything you actually bothered to carefully read.

            This is Luke 17:3-4. If you haven’t paid attention, as Jesus instructed, then don’t rebuke for sins that weren’t committed. And if your brother rebukes you for sinning against him or against the Lord, repent.

            I’m standing up for what the Bible says here. And I’m not going to back down, Stan. That’s not going to happen, no matter what tactics you employ.

            “All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Tim. 3:15-16

            As far as I’m concerned, those who willfully, blatantly, and knowingly ignore God’s Word qualify as wolves. Once you’ve torn down part of it, you’ve torn down it all. At that point, you’re nothing but a hypocrite to those you are trying to reach. How are you going to call people to repentance, when you have rejected and ignored the parts you don’t like just the same way they are doing? Who needs a Savior, when one can just simply ignore what they don’t like?

            That’s how you end up caring for the wolves while beating the sheep

            I’ve made the case. I’ve made you aware. The rest is between you and the Lord.

          2. You are beating sheep who’s only “sin” is believing and standing up for what the Bible says.

            Think about that.

          3. You can direct focus on me and my flaws and faults all you want, in any fallacious way imaginable, including those you wrongly perceive.Lord knows I’m nowhere near perfect.

            But my flaws and faults do not make the Bible any less true.

            In the words of the man who became famous using the word “purpose” who now doesn’t seem to have ever understood what the word even means, it’s not about me.

            It’s about what the Bible says.

  3. Men think with their junk way too much, and especially, if a woman is good looking then way too many men there will be distracted. It’s that simple. And the hair thing, they thought hair was a sex organ, where the sexual juices were produced (100% serious look it up), so it just doesn’t apply to today as we know hair is just hair and that’s all.

    1. To clarify, nothing in God’s Word is based on such a ridiculous belief about hair. It’s about the message being sent. Is the hair, clothing, appearance making a sinful statement, or sending a wrong message. It hearkens to Deut. 22:5 and other scriptures. Women should not make themselves look masculine. Men should not make themselves look feminine. Neither should behave or appear promiscuous or licentious. Mark 7:22 and others.

      Some of it is dependent on styles and customs at different times and places, but that doesn’t mean the Bible agrees with ridiculous reasons for such styles and customs. For those who may misunderstand, the “‘they” to whom you refer is not the apostles, and certainly not the Holy Spirit who inspired their words, but the world – culture, society, etc. If it is true that part of the reason had to do with ridiculous cultural belief about hair, then that would actually strengthen the argument about purpose and motherhood in terms of the statement women should publicly make through appearance and behavior.

      How much more important would such statements be, if simply relaying a message as Mary Magdalene did, is tantamount to preaching a sermon, as Warren claims? I believe the Bible is making the point that appearance, behavior, non-verbal statements are just as important and critical as verbal. And of course, that’s the main problem with women preaching behind the pulpit in violation of scripture. It sends a wrong message and makes a wrong statement, before she even speaks a single word. One of disrespect for God’s Word, if nothing else. A statement that says to be discontent and unhappy with the purposes God put into place. It doesn’t matter what the subject matter of the sermon may be, the message she sends is one of irreverent disrespect and discontent with God’s created order, and lack of complete submission to Him. About the same as a man putting on a wig and a dress.

    2. What’s ironic is that what passes for modern “science” isn’t much less ridiculous. Somebody in a white coat with a Ph.D beside their name will commission and conduct a “study” finding some statistical disparity between women with various hairstyles, and use it to fortify ridiculous hypotheses, which purposefully ignore God’s Word and deny His creation, because the world doesn’t like the standards and purposes He instituted. The world will say it obviously it must be in the hair, because it can’t be anything like the wickedness of the heart, fallen state of mankind, need for a redeemer, or anything of that sort. They will go to great and ludicrous lengths to try to find explanations which factor out God.

      What’s more ridiculous? The idea that hair is a sex organ, or that the universe came from the explosion of a tiny “singularity” which came from who knows where, ultimately leading to all living things coming from a mud puddle being truck by lightening?

      Not much different now than it was then.

    3. Hi Tom,
      A woman’s hair was a “SEX ORGAN”? Are you serious?!? When pursuing my education, none of my instructors ever mentioned such a thing and, I have not found one [respected] theological book or publication saying such either. So, Paul must have thought it so when he penned the Corinthian church?
      Being from a born again [nondenominational] seminary, I had instructors that were of every Christian pastoral background: Southern Baptist, EV Free, a resigned Catholic priest, Assemblies of God, Missionary Baptist, Foursquare, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian [not USA] and more…talk about a rounded education, yikes! None ever mentioned hair being a “sex organ”, that’s a new one. Where can I investigate that? Seriously!
      With respect,

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,675 other subscribers

Trending Posts